update_config_ui_by_id

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Update' is consistent. It adds a useful behavioral hint to fetch fields from GET/schema first, but does not disclose other traits like partial vs. full update semantics or error behaviors. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear format with argument labels. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. It provides a discovery path for the body fields, which is essential given the open-ended body object. However, it doesn't specify whether the update is partial or full, or any validation rules, leaving some ambiguity for a complex config resource.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only labels 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as a request payload, then directs the agent to external sources for field details. This is minimal and does not explain the body structure or any constraints, leaving the agent to discover them elsewhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and the resource ('UiConfig'), and provides the HTTP method and path, making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling config update tools (e.g., update_config_development_by_id) by the resource name, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'UiConfig' represents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a preparatory tip to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before updating, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other config update tools) or any exclusions. It lacks explicit context about the appropriate scenarios for this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.